FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:10 pm
To quote ... well you ....
AAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaDDDD Hominem
I'm not rejecting your argument because of who you are. I'm not bothering with you because you have nothing interesting or substantive to say, and I find spite boring.
WHat Sculptor actually wrote prior to you cutting it up...
DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:58 pm
its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.
I never understand what purpose the use of the word "truth" is supposed to serve in the phrase "personal truth." If something is "only true for me," then isn't it, by definition, a matter of utter indifference or plausibly of outright falsehood for everybody else?
This is due to two basic flaws in your personality.
The first, which is self evident is that you think that your personal views are objective and the every one else is wrong to believe something that you do not.
The second flaw is that you lack imagination.
Most people have personal truths. If you were to be honest with yourself so do you.
Here's an example or three
"Dog's are worthy of love"
"Vincent Van Gogh's art is wonderful"
"country and western is fucking awful".
These are how we carry our opinions, as truths. Most people realise that these truths are personal and that although they may meet others that share those ideas, they know and accept others do not.
There simply is no valid grounds to argue that your lack of imagination isn't a valid counter when your own argument begins "I never understand what purpose...."
Therefore you blatantly and deliberately misrepresent an opponent to pretend a fallacy has been put forth even though you know perfectly well it has not.
Please furnish Sculptor with a long overdue apology.
An interesting question for research would be whether or not IC's lack of introspective critical thinking skills in this instance - his inability to recognize the ad hom or when he's commiting it himself - is causally related to, or indicative of, his inability to critically examine Christianity and accept it as true, instead.
That is to ask, can we find a correlation between Christians and a misunderstanding of the ad hom? We have the particular case of IC, but would need to examine a sample group to make any determinations.
FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Tue Sep 05, 2023 11:10 pm
To quote ... well you ....
AAAAaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaAAAAAaaaaaaaDDDD Hominem
I'm not rejecting your argument because of who you are. I'm not bothering with you because you have nothing interesting or substantive to say, and I find spite boring.
WHat Sculptor actually wrote prior to you cutting it up...
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 5:12 pm
I never understand what purpose the use of the word "truth" is supposed to serve in the phrase "personal truth." If something is "only true for me," then isn't it, by definition, a matter of utter indifference or plausibly of outright falsehood for everybody else?
This is due to two basic flaws in your personality.
The first, which is self evident is that you think that your personal views are objective and the every one else is wrong to believe something that you do not.
The second flaw is that you lack imagination.
Most people have personal truths. If you were to be honest with yourself so do you.
Here's an example or three
"Dog's are worthy of love"
"Vincent Van Gogh's art is wonderful"
"country and western is fucking awful".
These are how we carry our opinions, as truths. Most people realise that these truths are personal and that although they may meet others that share those ideas, they know and accept others do not.
There simply is no valid grounds to argue that your lack of imagination isn't a valid counter when your own argument begins "I never understand what purpose...."
Therefore you blatantly and deliberately misrepresent an opponent to pretend a fallacy has been put forth even though you know perfectly well it has not.
Please furnish Sculptor with a long overdue apology.
Kick him in sculpy
Thank you for the support, but I'll not hold my breath waiting for him to apologise.
He is typical of a theist's arrogance. Because they think they have god on their side everything they think is pure and objective.
I'm pretty sure that Pope Leo X felt he was objectivley right about Catholicism; and at the same time Martin Luther thought that his 95 theses posted on the door of Wittenburg church - all flying against the Catholic church's dogma was also perfectly and objectively true.
I'm pretty sure that when Leo excomunicated him he thought he was right, and that Luther who died excommunicated believed he was going to god despite that.
And for all the millions that suffered and died, and still do from the Refomation and aftermath, many of them thought too that their opinions on the matter were divinely inspired, whilst others just looked on astounded in puzzlement
DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:58 pm
its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.
Fewer days make those days more.
That truth is the same for everyone and when fully understood, is true in every situation. Any truth that isn't true in every situation does not qualify for the lofty realms of Philosophy.
DPMartin wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 4:58 pm
its seems to be fashionable now to redefine personal knowledge as personal truth. turning what i know or have experienced isn't what you know or have experience in to "truth is relative". and converting that into if it isn't known, then its not true.
Fewer days make those days more.
That truth is the same for everyone and when fully understood, is true in every situation. Any truth that isn't true in every situation does not qualify for the lofty realms of Philosophy.
"Personal truth" is just a relabelling of what used to be called (more accurately IMO) "personal reality". Which implied your personal reality could be separate from the truth.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:19 pm
"Personal truth" is just a relabelling of what used to be called (more accurately IMO) "personal reality". Which implied your personal reality could be separate from the truth.
If you replace the word "your," with the words "POTUS Biden's," you will have a cogent, relevant, specific and true example of the implication you mention. Everything he says is a lie, big and small, and this is well-documented. In his dotage it's a reflex, a tell if you will. A tell of the truth.
LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:19 pm
"Personal truth" is just a relabelling of what used to be called (more accurately IMO) "personal reality". Which implied your personal reality could be separate from the truth.
If you replace the word "your," with the words "POTUS Biden's," you will have a cogent, relevant, specific and true example of the implication you mention. Everything he says is a lie, big and small, and this is well-documented. In his dotage it's a reflex, a tell if you will. A tell of the truth.
I'm so glad you pointed that out, because those seeking political office are so known for their truthtelling. Are you new to politics?
LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Sep 08, 2023 11:19 pm
"Personal truth" is just a relabelling of what used to be called (more accurately IMO) "personal reality". Which implied your personal reality could be separate from the truth.
If you replace the word "your," with the words "POTUS Biden's," you will have a cogent, relevant, specific and true example of the implication you mention. Everything he says is a lie, big and small, and this is well-documented. In his dotage it's a reflex, a tell if you will. A tell of the truth.
I'm so glad you pointed that out, because those seeking political office are so known for their truthtelling. Are you new to politics?
Relax. No need for defensive sarcasm. Just guiding you towards greater precision of expression with a bolstering concrete example that allows your personal thought to join the objective world that exists beyond the boundaries of form, the place where intellectual transmission no longer carries just personal meaning of reality. The guiding seemed an appropriate antidote and response to the risk of blithely confusing folks who may be easily confused by pronouns that hinge on the vagaries of an abstracted personal reality.
To sate your displayed need for sarcasm, has this additional pointing out elevated that gladness to a humourous chuckle?
is not personal truth the sum of all of what one knows? Is not the amplitude one persons beliefs and sights and vision conducted within they're own personal sounding life and realism? Who is some outside force to persuade one to believe that the corresponding world is more than what they can understand? for instance if i see the color blue as the green grass every other specimen sees and believes, though my sky is green unlike the planetarium blue that-again-every other being witnesses? Is this not my sounding truth? Is this not who i am to believe in this seeing and believing?
Hmm i don't think there can be such a thing as 'personal truth'. Unless that means things that happened to u exclusively... like it is your personal truth that u were at the steve miller concert and your vape blew up in your face, if that happened to nobody else.
But wait a minute.
Even if it only happened to u, how can that be true for only u? What do u mean, the 'experience' or 'qualia' is unique to u only? But experiences and qualia can't have the value 'true' or 'false'.
When i go 'mmmmm' after popping a pistachio in my mouf, that feeling isn't 'true' becuz even if it were a hallucination (let's say) the feeling still wouldn't be false, see. I would either have it or not, but not have it incorrectly or other than it should be, etc.
That essay 'what mary didn't know' by Jackson is good. Dude argues that if all knowledge and experience is just material information, mary should be able to know what it's like to see a color if she has studied its description extensively... even tho she's never been out of her black and white room.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 14, 2023 4:45 am
That essay 'what mary didn't know' by Jackson is good. Dude argues that if all knowledge and experience is just material information, mary should be able to know what it's like to see a color if she has studied its description extensively... even tho she's never been out of her black and white room.
Discuss.
Maybe I'm incorrect but (without Googling) I seem to recall there being two versions (or something like that) of Jackson's thought experiment. One involved actual color blindness on the part of Mary. If she were in fact color blind, could she know what it was "like" to see color just by reading an objective description from someone who sees in color? And if she couldn't, does that mean there is more to knowing reality than what understanding of scientific data can provide? And if there is something that can only be known independent of scientific understanding, then does the scientific description account for all of "reality" completely? If the scientific description does account for all of "reality" completely, then is conscious experience not "real" (as in unicorns not being "real" but horses and pointy horns are separately)?
promethean75 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 21, 2023 7:00 pm
Nevermind u can't even read it. I posted some pics of book pages of Churchland's objections to Jackson. U can't find it online.
What do you mean by you posted them but I can't find them? Are they no longer online or do you not wish me to see them and therefore you won't tell me where you've posted them? I studied a bit on the Churchland's approach to the philosophy of mind. I didn't find it particularly applicable to my experiences so I don't think it's a good idea for me to adopt or accept them.
promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2023 3:58 pm
My bad. I had posted pics of some actual pages from a book but u could barely make out what was said, so I deleted the pics.
I mistakingly thought I could only edit posts and not delete them. Shoulda just deleted it and spared us the confusion.
I didn't see the post with the actual pages from the book. So I guess it doesn't matter in that case.
